I would like to come to Harvard because I agree with Dr. Alan Greenspan when he said at the Grand Valley State University, Michigan, in 1999, something like this: "We can say, with assurance, that we are witnessing in this decade in the USA the most stimulating historic demonstration of the productive capacity of free peoples acting in free markets." Also,. Dr. Greenspan talks about the process of the enrichment of the intelligentsia in the USA.

This is exactly the opposite of what I note in the case of Brazil. There is lack of intelligentsia here and if it did exist, it's now suffering a process of corrosion. I give just three recent examples. 1) When people all over the world are studying English including "red" China, in Sao Paulo, the biggest and most important city of Brazil, children in public schools are studying French! 2) The current vice-President, Jose Alencar, declared in November 2005 that the government, of which he is, of course, an important part, has made a pact with the devil! 3) In November 2005 the state legislature of Rio de Janeiro approved a new law that a friend of mine called The Callipygian Law: from now on photos of girls in bikinis are forbidden on postcards. The governor signed it.

A second reason to come to Harvard would be to be in touch with other researchers who work in my area.I would like to stay a year at Harvard and in my second semester teach a seminar with the title: Brazilian Communism (Latin American?): an Ally of the USA.

Sincerely,

Research Project: A Comparative Study between Brazil and Portugal Concerning Labor Regulations

An intriguing question is why many unemployed Brazilian people of all levels of education are currently emigrating to Portugal looking for job opportunities. This phenomenon signifies a complete inversion of the history of the last four and an half centuries.

The first logical factor to examine is to consider the economic performance of both countries in the recent past. In fact, I have done so. The monumental work of professor Angus Maddison gives us the following data – the percentile of GNP per capita of Portugal/Brazil – for the period 1870 to 1989 (The data for 2004 are from the World Bank, in GNI per capita):

1870 1890 1913 1950 1973 1989 200435% 48% 39% 12% 69% 68% 364%

We can note two remarkable features from these data. First, it is quite clear that in 1950 Brazil had about the same GNP per capita as Portugal. Certainly it is due to the fantastic growth of the Brazilian economy between 1900 to 1950 – in fact the largest of the world. Second, the enormous difference in economic performance from 1989 to 2004. In just 15 years Brazil and Portugal seem to be two completely different countries. Portugal has not had an economic performance comparable to China in the last 15 years. What happened?

Looking at Brazil, the Brazilian Constitution of 1988, according to a quick check, the world’s longest to date, has been a complete disaster. The Brazilian economy has stagnated since then. It worsened the labor laws for many. In fact, it was the zenith of the populism that dictator Getulio Vargas had begun in 1930. Among another things, the Constitution introduced a new concept, that of moral damage. Although not a part of labor legislation itself, it has become a big problem for companies. It could be called the industry of moral damage. Currently, it is very hazardous to be a businessman in Brazil.

Also, other important economic trends, not considered as part of this study, have worsened.

Looking at Portugal, the Portuguese economy has had two important changes. First, the entry into the European Union – the basic and healthy idea of budget balance etc. Second, the 2nd amendment of 1989 to the Constitution of 1976 would have contributed to the conception of a free market economy, as stated by former Finance Minister (Ministro da Fazenda), Mailson da Nóbrega.

The inspiration for this research came to me when studying the magnificent The Regulation of Labor – Working Paper 9756, 2003, NBER Working Paper Series, for the 2nd edition of my book A Industria da Justiça do Trabalho (The Labor Justice Industry). The authors gave, with many justifications, a lot of weight to cultural factors when comparing countries. To begin with, they divide countries into common and civil law origins. I can not see, in this respect, two countries more alike in the world than Portugal and Brazil. Although they have about the same index in the cited work, they have had a completely different performance as shown above. Thus, there must be other important factors at play in this context. The idea here is to examine in detail, according my field experience in Brazil, part of the general study contained in The Regulation of Labor.

Of course, another interesting factor that was not considered in the cited work is the importance of the recent – I mean about the last two centuries – political history among countries. I have thought about this perhaps because of my political background. Most European countries have had a strong influence of Social-Democracy (The IInd International), the mother of the Russian bolshevism (The IIIrd International).

Why have, at least in the last decades, most of European countries had double the unemployment level of the USA? The Regulation of Labor explains this. In fact, when France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy and Belgium had an average rate of 1.62 for the index of employment laws and 1.64 for the index of industrial (collective) relations laws, the USA had .92 and .36!

The recent elections in Germany demonstrate the importance that politicians have given this matter. In France also this matter played a major role when the EU Constitution was voted. Besides, many industries are going to East Europe affirming that the main reason is the labor regulations or the negotiation of better conditions with the big unions to compete in this flat world – borrowing the expression of Thomas Friedman. Good examples are the cases of Bosch, Siemens, etc. China is the real thing.

An important step in this research would be a few weeks in Portugal dialoguing with young and old Portuguese businessmen and verifying in the field the real conditions of running a business in that country and to confirm the changes in the last decades concerning labor relations. This could be taken as nonsense for someone living in a developed country but in countries like Brazil it is very important. In such countries there are two types of laws: those which are obeyed and those which are not!

This understanding was reinforced after reading a recent interview with Dong Tao, a Chinese economist. Among other important things, he says that the Chinese labor market is the most capitalist of the world. The Regulation of Labor gives China the following indexes: 1.62 for the index of employment laws and 1.40 for the index of industrial (collective) relations laws. This is quite high, considering his declarations. So, I suppose that in China there also might be two different kinds of law.

The first step of this research would be to study as deeply as possible Portugal’s labor laws and, then, to observe in the field the real conditions.

Seminar: Brazilian Communism (Latin American?): an Ally of the USA.

I would like to demonstrate the existence of a new kind of Communism. Although quite different from the late Soviet or the current Cuban model, it is much more sophisticated. It has elections and many other appearances of a free market economy and a real democracy. It has generated hereditary pensions and many other privileges that obstruct any possibility of economic development. As a consequence, it exports people looking for jobs. This is evidenced by the fact that despite Wall Street and Washington praising Brazil’s economic performance, tens of thousands have tried to escape to the USA and elsewhere both for real economic opportunity and for personal safety. The US Border Patrol reports Brazilians are the Number Two nationality caught crossing illegally the Mexican Border.

The seminar is intended for students and scholars of Harvard departments of political sciences, history and sociology, and the JFK School of Government.

Letters of Recomendation

Dear Members of the Interdisciplinary Panel:

I write to recommend Josino Moraes, whom I understand is applying to be a Fellow of The David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies. Josino Moraes is a very interesting and thoughtful Brazilian engineer and economist whom I came to know when he stopped by my office at the University of Miami School of Law to interview me. I have subsequently read a number of his articles, primarily dealing with legal and economic aspects of Brazilian life. He writes extremely well, and he sees Brazil through a quite distinct and original perspective. I have been particularly intrigued by his discussion of the labor courts and the operation of labor legislation in Brazil. His analysis is one of the most penetrating I have seen on the subject.

Although he may have started out as a Marxist, Moraes left the Marxist camp long ago. He is very much his own person and an original thinker. I have every reason to believe that his project on a comparative study on Brazilian and Portuguese labor legislation will be carried out with verve, style, and acute insights into and the actual operations of the labor regulations.

I commend him to you most highly.

Sincerely, Keith S. Rosenn Professor of Law Director of the Foreign Graduate Law Program

I liked very much Josino Moraes’ book A Indústria da Justiça do Trabalho – A Cultura da Extorsão (The Industry of Labor Justice – The Culture of Extortion). I learned a lot. The courage of Mr. Moraes has added some bricks to the construction of the building of ideas that will lead to the extinction or at least the reformation of Labor Justice in Brazil, and also to ideas for the good functioning of a completely free market economy in Brazil.

Thank you for your application to the 2006-07 Visiting Scholars and Fellows Program of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University. Your proposal generated strong interest among colleagues here at Harvard, but I am afraid we are unable to offer you a fellowship at this time. This year's competition brought an unusual number of very strong applications from scholars and professionals of international reputation, and the selection process was quite rigorous. Unfortunately, with limited funds and space, we were not able accept many truly outstanding candidates.

My colleagues and I appreciate the time and care you took in preparing your proposal. Thank you for your interest in our Center and best wishes for your continued success.